It is the world's largest research organisation, comprising around 60,000 researchers working in 114 institutes,[2][3] and has been consistently ranked among the top research organisations around the world.[4][5][6]

The Chinese Academy of Sciences was ranked the No. 1 research institute in the world by Nature Publishing Index 2017, by Nature Publishing Group.[7]

Being granted a Fellowship of the Academy represents the highest level of national honor for Chinese scientists. The CAS membership system includes Academicians (院士), Emeritus Academicians (荣誉院士) and Foreign Academicians (外籍院士).

Based on the number of papers published in Nature and/or other research journals published by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG), the Chinese Academy of Science has ranked 1st among research institutions in the world according to the Nature Publishing Index elaborated by NPG in 2014 [4] and 2015.[5]

Membership of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (also known by the title Academician (CAS), Chinese: 中国科学院院士) is a lifelong honour given to Chinese scientists who have made significant achievements in various fields. According to Bylaws for Members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences adopted in 1992 and recently amended in 2014, it is the highest academic title in China. A formal CAS member must hold Chinese citizenship, although foreigners can be elected as foreign members of CAS. Members older than 80 are designated as "senior members", and may no longer hold leading positions in the organization.[8] Academicians of the Chinese Academy of Sciences carry an obligation to advance science and technology, to advocate and uphold scientific spirit, to develop a scientific and technological workforce, to attend member meetings and receive consultation and evaluation tasks, and to promote international exchanges and cooperation. Academicians can give suggestions and influence Chinese state policy related to science and technology.[9]

In 2015, the Academy employed a staff of 60,000 and counted 104 research institutes. It operates on a budget of roughly RMB 42 billion (circa US$6.8 billion), just under half of which comes from the government. The academy is struggling with a number of challenges. It is in direct competition with other Chinese institutions of learning for funding and talent. Underpaid scientists from the Academy have to apply constantly for grants to supplement their income, a widespread phenomenon in the entire research and higher education sector, which may have resulted in underperformance.[3][not in citation given]

Although the Chinese Academy of Sciences hosts the world's largest graduate school in terms of the number of postgraduate degrees awarded each year, which include 5,000 PhDs, the Academy has been finding it difficult in recent years to attract the best and brightest students. This has spurred the Academy to found two affiliated universities in Beijing and Shanghai, both of which opened their doors to a couple of hundred undergraduates in 2014.[3][not in citation given]

The Academy has seen its work duplicated on a large scale by its own institutes, which tend not to collaborate with each other. There is also a lack of interest among the Academy's scientists in seeking opportunities to apply their research to the economy, although this should not be its core mission.[3][not in citation given]

The Academy is also encumbered by the breadth of its mandate, which ranges from research, talent training, strategic high-tech development, commercialization of research results and local engagement to the provision of policy advice as a think tank and through its elite academicians; this makes it extremely difficult for the Academy to manage and evaluate institutes and individual scientists.[3][not in citation given]

Since 2013, China's political leadership has placed science, technology and innovation at the core of the reform of its economic system, as innovation can help not only with restructuring and transforming the economy but also with solving other challenges that China faces – from inclusive, harmonious and green development to an ageing society and the "middle income trap". New initiatives have been launched to reform the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the centrally financed national science and technology programmes, in order to increase China's chances of becoming an innovation-oriented, modern nation by 2020. This is the goal of the National Medium- and Long-Term plan for the Development of Science and Technology (2006–2020).[3]:32

Soon after being made General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and State President, Xi Jinping paid a visit to the Chinese Academy of Sciences in July 2013. General Secretary Xi urged the Academy to be 'a pioneer in four areas' (sige shuaixian): in leapfrogging to the frontier of scientific research, in enhancing the nation's innovative talent pool, in establishing the nation's high-level think tank in science and technology and in becoming a world-class research institution.[3][not in citation given]

Since 2013, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has 'come under enormous pressure from the political leadership to produce visible achievements'. The loss of independence of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the successor to the Soviet Academy of Sciences on which the Chinese Academy of Sciences was modelled, in a top-down reform in 2013 sent a chilling signal: if the Chinese Academy of Sciences does not reform itself, others will. This realization prompted Academy President Bai Chunli to take advantage of Xi’s call for the Academy to become 'a pioneer in four areas' to propose a sweeping reform of the academy through a new Pioneering Action Initiative (shuaixian xingdong jihua). The aim of this initiative is to orient the academy towards the international frontier of science, major national demands and the battleground for the national economy by re-organizing existing institutes into four categories:[3]

centres of excellence (zhuoyue chuangxin zhongxin) focused on basic science, especially in those areas where China has a strong advantage;

centres of big science (dakexue yanjiu zhongxin) built around large-scale facilities to promote domestic and international facilities to promote domestic and international collaboration; and

institutes with special characteristics (tese yanjiusuo) devoted to initiatives that foster local development and sustainability.

The reclassification of the Academy's institutes and their scientists was still under way in 2015. The Academy seems to be resting on its past achievements, with little consideration for whether this new initiative may be good for the nation or the Academy. This explains why some[who?] are sceptical about the necessity of maintaining such a gigantic organization, a model not found anywhere else in the world.[3][not in citation given]

Many of the goals that Academy President Bai Chunli proposed for the Pioneering Action Initiative are identical to those of his predecessor, Lu Yongxiang, through his own Knowledge Innovation Programme. There is no guarantee that these goals will be fulfilled through the reform undertaken in 2013. The Pioneering Action Initiative is pivoting institutions into a new matrix so as to boost collaboration within the Academy and concentrate on tackling key research questions. Implementation will be tough, though, since many institutes do not fit easily into any of the four categories defined above.[3][not in citation given]

Another worry is that the initiative may not necessarily encourage collaboration with scientists external to the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The danger is that the Academy may actually become even more hermetic and isolated than before. The timing of the reform may also complicate matters. The reform at the Academy coincides with the nationwide reform of public institutions (shiye danwei) launched in 2011.[3]

In general, the country's 1.26 million public institutions of education, research, culture and health care, which have more than 40 million employees, fall into two types. Institutes within the Chinese Academy of Sciences that fall into Type 1 are to be fully financed from the public purse and will be expected to fulfil only the tasks set by the state. Type II institutes of the Academy, on the other hand, will be allowed to supplement partial public funding with income earned through other activities, including through government procurement of their research projects, technology transfer and entrepreneurship.[3]

The reform will thus have implications both for the institutes and for individual scientists, in terms of the amount of stable funding they receive and the level of salaries, as well as the scope and importance of the executed projects. It is also likely that some institutes will be corporatized, as this is what has happened to China's application-oriented research institutes since 1999. Consequently, the Chinese Academy of Sciences will need to become a leaner institution, as the state may not always be willing or able to finance such a costly body.[3]

The question of the Academy's place in China's national innovation system was first raised at the time of the Academy's inception, immediately after the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. At the time, research and training were separated at universities and industrial research institutes focused on specific problems in their particular sectors. The academy contributed, in particular, to the success of China's strategic weapons programmes through a mission-oriented disciplinary development strategy.[3]

The high visibility of the Chinese Academy of Sciences attracted keen attention from the political leadership. In the mid-1980s, when China began reforming its science and technology system, the Academy was forced to adopt a 'one academy, two systems' approach. This strategy consisted in concentrating a small number of scientists on basic research and following the global trend in high technology, while encouraging the majority of its staff to engage in the commercialization of research results and projects of direct relevance to the economy. The overall quality of research suffered, as did the Academy's ability to tackle basic research.[3]

In 1998, the president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lu Yongxiang, initiated the Knowledge Innovation Programme to improve the academy's vitality. Initially, the Academy hoped to satisfy the Chinese leadership by making the staff of its institutes more nimble and mobile. The Academy's very existence was threatened, however, after it was downsized to compensate for the government's efforts to strengthen the research capability of universities and the national defence sector, the very sector that had historically absorbed Academy personnel or depended upon the Academy to take on major research projects.[3]

In reaction, the Academy not only reversed its early approach but even significantly expanded its reach. It established application-focused research institutes in new scientific disciplines and new cities and formed alliances with provincial and local governments and industries. The Suzhou Institute of Nanotech and Nanobionics is one such establishment; it was created jointly by the Academy and the Jiangsu provincial and Suzhou municipal governments in 2008. Some of these new institutes are not fully supported by the public purse; in order to survive, they have to compete with existing institutes and engage in activities that bear little relation to the Academy's mission as the national academy.[3]

On 26 February 2007, CAS published a Declaration of Scientific Ideology and set up a commission for scientific integrity to promote transparency, autonomy and accountability of scientific research in the country. The Ministry of Science and Technology had at the same time also initiated measures to address misconduct in state-funded programs.[12]

^"Director's Introduction". Institute of Neuroscience. Retrieved January 25, 2018. As part of a major drive for excellence in basic research in the new millennium, the Chinese Academy of Sciences founded the Institute of Neuroscience (ION) on November 27, 1999.